Wooden v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the proper focus is whether the injury was caused by direct exposure to unequal treatment, without regard to whether the plaintiff ultimately may obtain the sought-after benefit
• holding that “[t]o have standing to obtain forward-looking relief, a plaintiff must show a sufficient likelihood that he will be affected by the allegedly unlawful conduct in the future”
• suggesting that, in spite of the absence of reference to standing in Lesage, the decision “plainly bears on that [kind of] inquiry”
• “[Standing] is a threshold determination that is conceptually distinct from whether the plaintiff is entitled to prevail on the merits.”
• “[S]tanding . . . is a threshold determination that is conceptually distinct from whether the plaintiff is entitled to prevail on the merits.”
• claim cannot be asserted for a class \ 'unless at least one named plaintiff has suffered the injury that gives rise to that claim' \

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).